Upgraded Kirov class: Project 11442 [Admiral Nakhimov]

GarryB wrote:

He "claims" claims are just that.

Claims either way are all we have.... what a shocker that you believe the negative claims and dismiss the positive ones.

walle83 wrote:If China could get the old rustbucket Varyag back in shape then offcource its possible to repair all the old Kirov:s. The question is just if its economical worth it.
Personaly i dont think so. Yes I would love seing these impressive ships back at sea but how many corvettes and frigates can you get for the same price?
If the price for 1 updated Kirov = 4 brand new frigates, then frigates is my choice.

walle83 wrote:If China could get the old rustbucket Varyag back in shape then offcource its possible to repair all the old Kirov:s. The question is just if its economical worth it.
Personaly i dont think so. Yes I would love seing these impressive ships back at sea but how many corvettes and frigates can you get for the same price?
If the price for 1 updated Kirov = 4 brand new frigates, then frigates is my choice.

GarryB wrote:for a start where are you going to find the sailors to crew 20 frigates.

GarryB wrote:these ships are from teh 70s and 80s.. pretty much none of the wiring or piping would be worth keeping anyway... it just makes sense to replace it all and start from a hull.

And arithmetic makes no sense in this case as four frigates can't do what one cruiser can do... just like having 20 frigates does not mean you don't need a light carrier that can carry 20 VSTOL aircraft.. for a start where are you going to find the sailors to crew 20 frigates.. Russia is not going to have a huge Navy so quality matters in addition to quantity.

Azi wrote:I can't belive that upgrading Lazarov would be more expensive than building a new destroyer (Lider) or a new cruiser. They have NO development cost and the hull exist! The only one big problem would be the nuclear reactor, nothing more. For me it's just a excuse for Russia having not the manpower, shipbuilding capacity and know how now to rebuild or build more than 1 big ship at the same time.

Russia has now not the support of Ukraine, or any other nation, to build a big ship, they are to 100% relied on themselves. To rebuild the capacity for shipbuilding industry they start small with corvettes and smaller frigates and go later (around 2025) for big ships. My very personal opinion!

It would be a big mistake not reactivating Lazarov soon. Smaller ships are not bad and nice, but they lack endurance and abilities. A big cruiser can implement an A2/AD zone of 500 km radius in ocean (with S-500) and help friendly subs from being hunted and detected by enemy planes and helicopters. The endurance is much higher and it can work as a command center for a fleet.

kvs wrote:
Banderastani support.  LOL.   Banderastan is not even in the condition to help itself and would be a negative support for Russia.

All you Russia hating clowns are pathetic.   The days of behemoth ships, including air craft carriers, is long over.   In the missile era it
makes more sense to have several smaller ships packing massive missile firepower than one big ship clumping the same capacity in one
big target.  Really, the fascination with massive ships is idiotic.  Why not just pack the whole navy into a single super sci-fi ship.   It will
make it easier for the enemy to take the whole outfit out all at once.  

Russia can build the massive atomic ice breakers but can't swap out the nuclear power plant on the Nakhimov?   Put the crack pipe down.
It's giving you serious brain damage.

kvs wrote:The days of behemoth ships, including air craft carriers, is long over.   In the missile era it
makes more sense to have several smaller ships packing massive missile firepower than one big ship clumping the same capacity in one
big target.

kvs wrote:Banderastani support.  LOL.   Banderastan is not even in the condition to help itself and would be a negative support for Russia.

Azi wrote:I can't belive that upgrading Lazarov would be more expensive than building a new destroyer (Lider) or a new cruiser. They have NO development cost and the hull exist! The only one big problem would be the nuclear reactor, nothing more. For me it's just a excuse for Russia having not the manpower, shipbuilding capacity and know how now to rebuild or build more than 1 big ship at the same time.

Russia has now not the support of Ukraine, or any other nation, to build a big ship, they are to 100% relied on themselves. To rebuild the capacity for shipbuilding industry they start small with corvettes and smaller frigates and go later (around 2025) for big ships. My very personal opinion!

It would be a big mistake not reactivating Lazarov soon. Smaller ships are not bad and nice, but they lack endurance and abilities. A big cruiser can implement an A2/AD zone of 500 km radius in ocean (with S-500) and help friendly subs from being hunted and detected by enemy planes and helicopters. The endurance is much higher and it can work as a command center for a fleet.

Russia can comfortably operate 20 or more heavy frigates/light destroyers (> 5,000t).
Finding sailors is no issue, especially given that modern frigates of 6,000t (FREMM) require 130 crew (150 crew incl. air component).

I am not saying russia doesn't need cruisers they do, but you said yourself they will never have a huge navy. So they will never have a huge amount of cruisers to start with frankly if they dos tart making Lider's I'd be surprised if they made more then six of em.

The endurance is much higher and it can work as a command center for a fleet.

It will
make it easier for the enemy to take the whole outfit out all at once.

Russia can build the massive atomic ice breakers but can't swap out the nuclear power plant on the Nakhimov? Put the crack pipe down.
It's giving you serious brain damage.

You compare a nuclear icebreaker with a nuclear missile cruiser    That makes no sense!

Ukrainian are NO enemys, they are brothers to Russians! Only the administration is a NAZI administration. Turn your hate on other things!

Big_Gazza wrote:
Finally, don't under-estimate the moral uplift to the Navy and propaganda value to the nation of having 3x of these Big Bad Bitches roaming the seas. Intimidation factor 10+...

Sorry, but your Armata analogy is nonsense. The Armata is not equivalent of clumping a group of tanks into a single big one.
If anything it is much lighter and faster than western MBTs. So it conforms to the fast instead of big ideology.

Russian naval command is clearly not in a hurry to build a slew of Pyotr Velikiy class battleships. They feel that smaller
ships equipped with missiles can do the job. Spreading assets into several targets compared to one large one is always
going to be the correct approach. The size of capital ships is a relic of the past when they relied on gun turrets lobbing
heavy shells. Modern ships do not lob heavy shells. They fire off missiles. A modern missile ship half the size of the
current Pyotr Velikiy class can be much more deadly.

Ideally that first priority would mean frigates, but actually it could be declined as large corvettes.

The only point I actually don't understand it is why RN is pushing back design and construction of a new AAW destroyer.

Given the multitude of new long range radar devloped in conjunction of S-350, S-400 and S-500, and related networking and integration HW and SW, would it cost a fortune to develop a naval variant to embark on a 7.000 - 9,000 tons hull?

Let's say a modernized and adapted Udaloy's hull, a navalized 91N6E as main radar and 92N6E as long range tracking radar, pkus standard present day equipment for russian ships.

GarryB wrote:Wonder if they will put a new stealthy 130mm gun turret to replace the old 130mm guns or put the Koalition on there in a new stealthy turret... I hope the latter of course.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Is there any chance of the old style rounded turret housings to return? I realy liked the old Soviet naval turrets apearance.